Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Passionfruit flower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Passionfruit Flower
Other versions: Image:Passionfruit flower06.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower05.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower.jpg, Image:Passionfruit flower02.jpg
I think this is a nice photo of the beautiful flower of the passionfruit.
- Support Self Nom --Fir0002 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment DOF is a little narrow IMO. Camerafiend 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Support Heck I think it looks really cool. Nice stuff. drumguy8800 - speak? 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice flower but I agree with Camerafiend and also the bokeh is very distracting (but hey, that's not your fault). --antilived T | C 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - too many parts of the flower are not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent. --KILO-LIMA 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice photo, but for an encyclopedia I think the whole flower should be in focus. Camerafiend 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK I can understand that, but if I decreased the aperture the background would have become even more prominent and the flower may have become lost.
Also shutter speed would have been a problem with a moving object (wind) in the shade--Fir0002 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)- But fir002, you can't use your own (and physical) limitations as a justification for a photo that has others believe has flaws. It either is or it isn't FP quality in their mind and the reasons why you couldn't do it differently shouldn't really matter to them, unless it is an exceptional photo that didn't allow for better planning. I do agree that it is difficult to get a macro shot with pleasing bokeh and good depth of field though. Perhaps you could have taken the photo looking down at the flower rather than from the side. I don't know if it would have improved the composition but its just an idea. I also know you can't please everyone. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I should have made myself more clear. Disregard what I said about shutter speed that was merely as an after thought. My main point is that the low DOF makes the picture look good IMO because it focuses on a central subject - the center of the flower --Fir0002 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- But fir002, you can't use your own (and physical) limitations as a justification for a photo that has others believe has flaws. It either is or it isn't FP quality in their mind and the reasons why you couldn't do it differently shouldn't really matter to them, unless it is an exceptional photo that didn't allow for better planning. I do agree that it is difficult to get a macro shot with pleasing bokeh and good depth of field though. Perhaps you could have taken the photo looking down at the flower rather than from the side. I don't know if it would have improved the composition but its just an idea. I also know you can't please everyone. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I am fine with the front and back petals being out of focus, but the stigmas and anthers are out of focus. Since they are the important organs of a flower, and they look quite different to most flowers, it would be best for them to be in focus. --liquidGhoul 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Pehaps there is a different photo from the ones listed above which you would prefer? --Fir0002 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- They are all very good, and very close to FP, but there is something small annoying me in all of them. I tihnk number 2 is the best, but it is out of focus in the front instead of the back. Number 6 is good with focus, but the lighting is distracting. I think you chose an incredibly difficult subject, and needed some luck to get both good lighting and focus, especially if it was windy. --liquidGhoul 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Number 3 is the best (although you haven't listed it). I support it. The lighting and focus are good, the only problem I can see, is that a leaf is partially obstructing the flower. I have no problem, as it adds more encyclopaedic value, and it doesn't really distract. But I don't know if others will see it that way. I really like the flower bud as well. --liquidGhoul 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- They are all very good, and very close to FP, but there is something small annoying me in all of them. I tihnk number 2 is the best, but it is out of focus in the front instead of the back. Number 6 is good with focus, but the lighting is distracting. I think you chose an incredibly difficult subject, and needed some luck to get both good lighting and focus, especially if it was windy. --liquidGhoul 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - for those that oppose, Image:Passionfruit flower02.jpg has its merits. drumguy8800 - speak? 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regretful Oppose Sorry just not enough of the key structures of this flower are in focus for an encyclopaedic FP. I agree with liquidGhoul that Image:Passionfruit_flower03.jpg has the best encyclopaedic value, showing the context of the flowers and a well-shot bud, and I might just support that one but it isn't the most pleasing aesthetically which is why you didn't list it above, I guess. Image:Passionfruit_flower06.jpg has the important bits in focus but unfortunately the highlights are burned out. These photos are a very worthy contribution to the encyclopaedia but I can't support them for FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - If you have a flower photo that you think deserves FP its going to need to be utterly mindblowing to make it. There are already too many flowers imho.--Deglr6328 07:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Veledan. enochlau (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, a good pic, but not interesting enough to be FP IMHO. Eyesclosed 19:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- User's 7th edit.
- Oppose, somehow the flower doesn't stand out very well, background too messy. Also, there's that depth-of-focus problem... --Janke | Talk 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
